SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This unit process includes operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) ocean tanker using steam, DFDE/TFDE, ME-GI or X-DF engines. The tanker is fueled by a combination of boil-off gas (BOG) produced via evaporation of LNG, fuel oil, and diesel.
This Unit Process includes feed LNG, energy requirements, losses, boil-off gas generation and GHG emissions associated with loading LNG into tanker/ship for exporting.
This unit process includes operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) ocean tanker. The tanker is fueled by boil-off natural gas, with other supplemental fuel, based on Wartsila 50DF engine specifications.
This unit process covers the energy requirements, emissions, and losses associated with regasifying LNG at an import terminal.
The motivation for the experiments reported here pertains to the siting of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities which requires assessing the potential adverse radiant thermal impacts of accidental fires on the public. The objective is to obtain data on jet fires, pool fires, fireballs, and concrete walls that could serve as thermal barriers for model validation. The fuels tested include ethane, ethylene, propane, and isopentane.
Not Available
This unit process includes pipeline gas input, energy requirements, emissions, and losses, associated with processing, liquefaction and storage of natural gas at six different U.S. liquefaction facilities before it is exported.
This Unit Process includes the Pipeline gas input, energy requirements, emissions, losses, and boil-off gas associated with Processing, Liquefaction and Storage of Natural Gas before it is exported.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) is Alaska’s natural gas infrastructure development corporation established in 2013. AGDC’s mission is to maximize the benefit of Alaska’s vast North Slope natural gas resources for Alaskans through the development of infrastructure necessary to move the gas into local and international markets. AGDC was identified for a Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) project for funding in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023 under the heading: “Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects.” The CDS included $\$$4,000,000 of direct funding, with required match funds, to move the project forward. Alaska’s North Slope holds America’s largest proven and conventional natural gas supply. The integrated Alaska LNG Project will deliver 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Alaska’s North Slope gas fields to Alaskans as well as to a marine terminal located at tidewater in Cook Inlet. Alaska LNG is an integrated gas infrastructure project with three major components: a gas treatment plant (GTP) located at Prudhoe Bay, an 807-mile (1,287 km) gas pipeline (Mainline Pipeline) to Southcentral Alaska with interconnections for in-state gas use, and a natural gas liquefaction facility (LNG Facility) in Nikiski, Alaska. The integrated Alaska LNG Project has several strategic advantages including proven gas resources, existing upstream infrastructure, an advantageous arctic climate for LNG production, proximity to LNG markets, a track record of reliability from a state that first began exporting LNG to Japan in 1969, and broad support from Alaskans. North Slope natural gas is a conventional resource and can be produced with minimal drilling at a fraction of the carbon dioxide emissions of shale gas from the Lower 48 states. Through the development of the Alaska LNG Project, Alaska can provide energy security to Alaskans and a stable source of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region for generations. The Alaska LNG Project has been progressed through Pre-Front-End Engineering Design (Pre-FEED) and has obtained all major federal and State of Alaska permits and authorizations to construct the project, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. On September 5, 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) awarded Project No. DE-FE0032307 to AGDC with the objective to progress the project to Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) entry for the Alaska LNG Project Phase 1 Pipeline. The award Start Date was made effective July 1, 2023, with a Period of Performance through June 30, 2025. On March 27, 2025, AGDC announced the execution of definitive commercial agreements with Glenfarne Alaska LNG, LLC, an affiliate of Glenfarne Group, LLC, (together as “Glenfarne”), to lead the development of the Alaska LNG Project and enter FEED for the Phase 1 Pipeline. Project activities are now funded and directed by this private sector partner who holds a 75% interest in 8 Star Alaska, LLC (8 Star). 8 Star holds the assets of the Alaska LNG Project. As planned, AGDC continues to hold 25% minority interest in 8 Star and will play a governance role moving forward with Alaska LNG. This definitive commercial agreement milestone led to the successful completion of AGDC’s Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) for FEED entry and led to the completion of DOE Project No. DE-FE0032307. At conclusion of the SOPO, AGDC also reached the award’s maximum federal cost share of $\$$4,000,000. AGDC is, therefore, providing Final Technical Report to close out DOE Project No. DE-FE0032307.
The war in Ukraine caused Europe to more than double its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in only one year. In addition, imported LNG remains a crucial source of energy for resource-poor countries, such as Japan, where LNG imports satisfy about a quarter of the country's primary energy demand. However, an increasing number of countries are formulating stringent decarbonization plans. Liquefied hydrogen and liquefied ammonia coupled with carbon capture and storage (LH 2 -CCS, LNH 3 -CCS) are emerging as the front runners in the search for low-carbon alternatives to LNG. Yet, little is currently known about the full environmental profile of LH 2 -CCS and LNH 3 -CCS because several characteristics of the two alternatives have only been analyzed in isolation in previous work. Here we show that the potential of these fuels to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions throughout the supply chain is highly uncertain. Our best estimate is that LH 2 -CCS and LNH 3 -CCS can reduce GHG emissions by 25%–61% relative to LNG assuming a 100 year global warming potential. However, directly coupling LNG with CCS would lead to substantial GHG reductions on the order of 74%. Further, under certain conditions, emissions from LH 2 -CCS and LNH 3 -CCS could exceed those of LNG, by up to 44%. These results question the suitability of LH 2 -CCS and LNH 3 -CCS for stringent decarbonization purposes.
Due to the highly volatile nature of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and the systems required for generation and safe containment, it is likely a targeted cyber-attack on LNG control and safety systems will have a significant economic impact on energy supplies and prices. Moreover, if the interconnected operational technology (OT) devices within LNG systems are exploited to malfunction, the repair and recertification process will almost certainly be longer than for natural gas (NG) systems.
For reducing carbon emissions in the shipping sector, application of alternative low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels is the consensus. However, requirements of economic development cannot be ignored while focusing on emission reduction. Cargo development is an important prerequisite. Considering the cargo growth as a novelty, a method to calculate the annual carbon emissions of different alternative fuel-powered ships in different cargo growth prospects and power scenarios is proposed. With respect to the time dimension, the relationship between alternative fuels, cargo, and carbon reduction is revealed. The Yangtze River bulk carrier case was studied and the life cycle carbon emission analysis of diesel, LNG hybrid, LNG, hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia were carried out. The annual carbon curves of the high, steady, and low cargo growth prospects were obtained for different scenarios of the power system structure. The results show that LNG hybrid, LNG and methanol fuels are currently the suitable choices. Their life cycle carbon emissions were reduced by 31.5–38.1% compared with those of diesel power. The carbon emissions of green hydrogen and green ammonia were reduced by 78.8% and 91.3%, respectively, compared with those of hydrogen and ammonia. The carbon reduction results of green fuels in their initial application were explored which are at 0.6–10.8%. In addition, there is a balanced annual growth rate, whose annual carbon curve will be steady under its corresponding scenario of power system structure, which could help the ship owners plan their future.
Direct air capture (DAC) of CO 2 is a key component in the portfolio of negative emissions technologies for mitigating global warming. However, even with the most potent amine sorbents, large-scale DAC deployment remains limited by high energy and capital costs. Recently, adsorbents relying on weak interactions with CO 2 have emerged as a potential alternative, thanks to their rapid adsorption kinetics and superior long-term stability, particularly under sub-ambient conditions (∼253 K). Despite these advantages, their use is hindered by the need for a water-removal process, location-specific constraints, and insufficient working capacity even in cold climates. In this study, we hypothesized that further reducing the adsorption temperature to a near-cryogenic range (160–220 K) could enable cost-effective DAC by utilizing the full potential of physisorbents. We primarily consider integrating DAC with a relatively untapped source of cold energy—liquified natural gas (LNG) regasification—to perform near-cryogenic DAC. From large-scale molecular simulations, Zeolite 13X and CALF-20 were identified as promising candidates. These materials were subsequently examined through experiments, including breakthrough analyses at 195 K. Their high CO 2 sorption capacity (4.5–5.5 mmol g −1 ), combined with a low desorption enthalpy and robust long-term stability, led to a threefold reduction in the levelized cost of capture (down to 68.2 USD per tonne CO 2 ). Estimates of the global LNG regasification resource suggest that LNG–DAC coupling could potentially enable the capture of 103–142 megatonnes of CO 2 annually as of 2050.
This core model proposal adds detail to GCAM's natural gas trade model by separating gas trade between Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and six regional gas pipeline networks. This entails creating new trade markets for global LNG and the six regional pipeline networks, and modifying the regional natural gas sector in each region to reflect the competition between LNG and pipelines within imported natural gas, and between different pipeline networks. The nesting subsector capability (CMP #299 Infinite Subsector Nesting) was used to represent this additional level of competition on the consumption side.
This document provides a description of the model evaluation protocol (MEP) database for fires involving liquefied natural gas (LNG) and processing fuels at LNG facilities. The purpose of the MEP is to provide procedures regarding the assessment of a model's suitability to predict thermal exclusion zones resulting from a fire. The database includes measurements from pool fire, jet fire, and fireball experiments which are provided in a spreadsheet. Users are to enter model results into the spreadsheet which automatically generates statistical performance measures and graphical comparisons with the experimental data. The intent of this document is to provide a description of the experiments and of the procedure required to carry out the validation portion of the MEP. In addition, the statistical performance measures, measurements for comparisons, and parameter variation are provided.
This document provides a description of the model evaluation protocol (MEP) for pool fires, jet fires, and fireballs involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), refrigerant fluids, and byproducts at LNG facilities. The purpose of the MEP is to provide procedures regarding the assessment of a model's suitability to predict heat flux from fires. Three components, namely, a scientific assessment, model verification, and model validation comprise the MEP. The evaluation of a model satisfying these three components is to be documented in the form of a model evaluation report (MER). Discussion of models for the prediction of fire, detailed information on each of the three MEP components, the MEP procedure regarding new versions of previously approved models, and the format of the model evaluation report (MER) are provided.
This document provides a description of the model evaluation protocol (MEP) database for fires involving liquefied natural gas (LNG) and processing fuels at LNG facilities. The purpose of the MEP is to provide procedures regarding the assessment of a model’s suitability to predict thermal exclusion zones resulting from a fire. The database includes measurements from pool fire, jet fire, and fireball experiments which are provided in a spreadsheet. Users are to enter model results into the spreadsheet which automatically generates statistical performance measures and graphical comparisons with the experimental data. The intent of this document is to provide a description of the experiments and of the procedure required to carry out the validation portion of the MEP. In addition, the statistical performance measures, measurements for comparisons, and parameter variation are provided.